SRA dressing down for Hogan Lovells partner who sacked pregnant nanny

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has rebuked a senior City solicitor after he lost an employment tribunal case for sacking his pregnant nanny.

The regulator dished out the slap on the wrist to Sylvain Dhennin, a finance partner at Hogan Lovells, after a tribunal found that he had unfairly dismissed the childcare worker in 2017. Dhennin canned Saesi Muslipah, who looked after his two young children, just days after she revealed that she was pregnant.

The judgment accused the Oxford-educated lawyer of “obscuring the facts” and using “deliberate, careful and sophisticated” language in giving evidence. Dhennin, who heads the high yield practice at Hogan Lovells, was ordered to cough up £18,000. He did not appeal.

Following an SRA investigation, the City high-flyer admitted that “by discriminating against the nanny and unfairly dismissing her, he has breached Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011”. He also admitted to a separate breach of the SRA code of conduct for failing to notify the regulator of the tribunal decision.

“The agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest. The rebuke marks the seriousness of Mr Dhennin’s conduct and the impact it had on the nanny. The SRA also acknowledges that his conduct in this case was unconnected with his legal practice as a registered foreign lawyer and as a partner and there was no lack of integrity on his part.”

It added that there was mitigation in the case, including “challenging personal circumstances” and Dhennin’s “clear regulatory history”.

Dhennin accepted the sanction as part of an agreed outcome to the investigation. He must also pay £600 in costs. Hogan Lovells declined to comment.

13 Comments

Anonymous

People should be allowed to sack pregnant nannies. Nannying is a job for people who don’t have their own children to look after.

(22)(41)

Anonymous

Aug 29 2019 11:22am

Chin absent, presumed missing.

(9)(1)

Anonymous

Aug 29 2019 11:25am

I hate those stupid outcomes/principles. Load of bullsh*te

(10)(5)

Anonymous

Aug 29 2019 11:28am

What a charmer.

(8)(0)

Anonymous

Aug 29 2019 11:32am

So the employment tribunal said that he obscured the facts, but this doesn’t amount to a lack of integrity as far as SRA are concerned.

(41)(0)

Anonymous

Aug 29 2019 11:52am

So parents are incentivised to sack nannies regularly in order to prevent them accruing maternity rights.

*slow hand clap*

(10)(3)

Anonymous

Aug 29 2019 12:40pm

Poor guy. This is no business of the SRA.

(14)(15)

Anonymous

Aug 29 2019 1:07pm

The SRA’s Code of Conduct is unduly harsh and extremely vague. Solicitors can’t even sneeze without offending a principle these days.

(13)(5)

Anonymous

Aug 29 2019 2:33pm

Totally agree. Should be banned.

(1)(2)

Anonymous

Aug 29 2019 3:38pm

I think the requirement to uphold the rule of law has been part of the code for quite a while now. You can argue whether the law on maternity leave is right or wrong. But as a lawyer you should really know what it is.